Earle v. Apple

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Carlos Marquette Earle, a/k/a ) Carlos Marquette Thomas, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 9:25-cv-13141-BHH v. ) ) ORDER K. Apple, John Doe, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon the pro se complaint filed by Plaintiff Carlos Marquette Earle, a/k/a Carlos Marquette Thomas (“Plaintiff” or “Earle”) against the above- named Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On April 22, 2026, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form by providing the necessary information and paperwork, and the Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff of pleading deficiencies and gave him the opportunity to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff failed to bring his case into proper form within the time permitted, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, on May 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 9.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9), and the Court dismisses this action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge July 21, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina 2 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is notified of the right to appeal this order within the time period set forth under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3